Davide's Notes

Hall claims that the writings of the early apologists indicate that their theology was more binitarian than trinitarian. They tend to speak of God and his Word (logos), rather than of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Note though that other definitions of binitarianism are possible: see for example Barnes' Early Christian Binitarianism: the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Binitarianism has been linked to the desire of the Apologists to speak to a Greek audience in a way they could understand. So, their theology would have been influenced by Greek philosophy and by gnostic thought (more on gnosticism later). Cf. The Development of Trinitarianism in the Patristic Period.

Indeed, at least in the objections to Christianity I have considered so far, Christians seem identified with the adoration of two deities: cf. the notes on Celsus and Octavius. This is already a clear departure from the unitarianism of the OT (so that Celsus accuses them of polytheism). In the same objections, the Holy Spirit is not clearly identifiable.

At the same time, it seems to me that binitarian theology is not consistently affirmed across the early Apologists, and perhaps not even within single individuals: for example, Athenagoras clearly speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ("effluence form God"). Justin shows, on the one hand, a binitarian thought reminding of the Greek logos; for example:

'Let Us make,'--I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that[God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. These are the words:'And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.' In saying, therefore,'as one of us,'[Moses] has declared that[there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. [...] But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.

(Dialogue with Trypho, LXII)

On the other hand, he also acknowledges the presence of three persons and the authority of the Trinity (or, perhaps better, a Triad):

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

(First Apology, V)
And, speaking of the baptism:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

(First Apology, LXI)

We then have Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), a pagan converted to Christianity, who on the one hand rejects with great contempt Greek philosophers and thought (claiming among other things that the Greek writings were later than the divinely inspired books of the OT), and on the other very clearly defines the nature of God using Greek concepts (and especially clarifying the function of the logos): God is without beginning, uncreated, unchangeable; this God

stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.
(To Autolycus, II.X)

I would then say that Greek influence (think for example of Plato's Timaeus) had a decisive impact in moving away from unitarism and in the definition and expression of the new theological concepts of God/Logos and Father/Son/Spirit. The early Apologists have not arrived yet at a consistent trinitarian definition, but there are already signs of it. Speaking of Justin, Hall suggests that Jesus in the passages above is not identified with the logos (which seems clear), and may be regarded as an angel. But this does not fully explain either the passages above or the fact that the Holy Spirit seems subordinated to the Son (besides the Father).

On the other hand, another ancient writer (Hermas) affirms the opposite, i.e. the Son is subordinate to the Holy Spirit:

And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking reli 36 giously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it.

(Shepherd, Fifth Similitude, VI)

The position of Barnes (binitarianism = Father/Holy Spirit) is interesting, and it moves from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Its main assumption, derived from the fact that both Justin and Trypho refer to the Holy Spirit without arguing about it, is that Judaism and early Christianity share a pneumatology. The Jewish pneumatological streams he refers to are angel pneumatology and the arrival of the sent spirit (association of the Spirit with prophecy in the Second Temple period). The conclusion would be that, if in an early Christian text we find extensive treatment of the Holy Spirit, then that text would have a Jewish-Christian character. In this regard, it would be interesting to learn more about Syriac Christianity. But his theory seems at least right with Hermas and his superiority of the Holy Spirit over the Son, as Hermas shows a distinct Jewish influence.

Concepts that may have influenced the birth of the God/Logos couple are the dualism between spirit and matter and the Stoic distinction between immanent Word and expressed Word. Another important point may be the desire of some Christian theologians to supplement (or replace) the historical Jesus with docetists theories (remember Ignatius and Valentinus). It is anyway quite debatable whether the theological concept of Trinity can be said to have a biblical foundation.

---

Categories: Church_History

From Philosophical Apologetics, the Church, and Contemporary Culture, by J.P. Moreland:

Social historian John Gager has pointed out that even though the early church was a minority movement that faced intellectual and cultural ridicule and marginalization, the early church maintained internal cohesion and a courageous witness thanks in no small measure to the powerful role in the broader Christian community of the philosophically trained apologists in the first centuries of the Christian faith.

Moreland then maintains that philosophical apologetics is an effective mean to "penetrate effectively our culture and proclaim Christ and a Christian world view to outsiders and to our own brothers and sisters". I would not extend this to mean that it is because of the apologists that the Christian faith got so widespread in the first two-three centuries, though. But the ability to give a philosophical background to the faith must have weighted in when it came to present it in front of the learned of the time. Conversely, I am quite prepared to accept Moreland's point that, if a philosophical background and broad knowledge of philosophy is missing or not perceivable (e.g. in evangelists, laymen and priests alike), then religious talk and doctrine is likely to be perceived as weak, insignificant, or meaningless. I think this is a point that the early apologists urge us to consider.

The model adopted by the early apologists is likely Paul, who consistently used the categories of thought typical of his audience, while making clear (1 Cor 2:2) that his only interest is to know nothing "except Jesus Christ and him crucified". So, when speaking of Jesus to Jews, he started with the OT (Acts 17:2-3); when speaking to people of Lystra, used to pagan worship (Acts 14:8-18), he started with the presence of God in nature; when speaking to Greek thinkers in Athens (Acts 17:24ff), he used philosophical concepts.

In the first apologists the main reasons why they do apologetics are:

• in general, defend the Christian movement from attacks. Before the apostolate and the care to reach out "for the hungry and the fallen", we have here an agenda of survival.
• counter-argument the position that Christians do not really know what they talk about (Celsus: they are not able to explain "at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived"). This is in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15: "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have". This gives more overall credibility and acceptance to the proponents of the Christian faith.
• provide a credible historical framework to the Christian faith. Cf. for example the fragments of Quadratus, telling us that the works of Jesus were "real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure; and, indeed, some of them have survived even down to our own times."
• reassure that Christians do have a role in the world, although they are not of the world. The Epistle to Diognetus makes this explicit: "To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world" (Diognetus VI). This counters the charges of disengagement and rejection of worldly powers. The early church soon enough condemned idealistic stances (and the idealization of martyrdom). Apologists are working here in continuity with Acts and his concern to state that Christianity posed no threat to Roman authority.
• the desire to prove that the Christian faith is superior to Greek philosophy (against e.g. Celsus' claim that Christianity was barbarous in origin), the fashionable way of thinking at the time. See, for example, Tatian and his Address to the Greeks. This apology is quite interesting: Tatian encourages Greeks not to consider themselves as the superior race, but rather ponder how many of their institutions, customs and discoveries really derive from the "barbaric world". Beyond the actual value of Tatian's arguments, it seems a modern way of approaching and discussing issues (in this case, the superiority of Greek philosophy) that are sometimes taken for granted just because everybody is accustomed to think so. In order to do this, one of course needs to address and answer the most direct charge that the Christian religion is unreasonable and meaningless. Think of the problematic topic of the resurrection from the dead here: Tatian addresses it showing that it is the Greek philosophy, with its beliefs that things are "produced and destroyed for no useful purpose [...] according to the return of certain cycles", that is unreasonable. This is an example of revertings a charge against those who propose it  by better or altered definition of the terms: so also for instance Justin when he claims that yes, Christians are atheists, but in the sense they do not adore idols or false gods (hence, the real atheists are those who do not recognize the one and true Christian God).
• the desire to reconcile (rather than replace, as above) Greek thought with Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the symbol of a synthesis between Greek and Christian thought; Athenagoras makes abundant use of Greek philosophical categories while making his point, and sees Greek mythology as pointing toward Christianity. Here we have the adoption of what can be adopted from the opposition, and even the appropriation of important symbols: so, for instance, Socrates is often shown as a pre-Christian sage, telling his own people to move away from idolatry and false doctrines. Cf. for example Justin: "We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious." (First Apology, XLVI)
• the desire to provide a foundational theology that derives Christian doctrine from the Jewish tradition. Justin, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, interprets Christian teachings as derived from the "previous law", but with a universal validity, and without the now needless cerimonial rulings ("the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented"). The Jewish theology of the election is then reinterpreted accordingly to explain what was the real meaning of circumcision, fasting, food laws, sacrifices, Sabbath ("God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath [...] on account of your unrighteousness"), etc. Law, prophets and writings, the whole of TaNaK, really speak of and point to Jesus.
• the desire to have fair debates about what is really being discussed, and not being condemned just "because of the name" (so Athenagoras and Justin) or on the basis of rumours. Beyond the "name", Christians exhibit impeccable moral behavior (note how much space is devoted to the topic of explaining Christian moral principles). They have nothing to do with the charges of cannibalism and incest: on the contrary, these charges are the fruit of a pagan way of thinking.
• the need to better define important doctrinal points. Think here of the evolving concept of the nature of God. Hall maintains that the theology of the first apologists is "binitarian" rather than "trinitarian" (I should consider this better, cf. for example The Development of Trinitarianism In the Patristic Period). Other theological advancements happen because of the "forced" debate between apologists and their opponents (including movements that will end up being labeled as "heretics"), which reminds us of the importance of debate and confrontation in all human activities. Another example: the charge of being a sectarian and secret movement forced Christian theologians to expound (and therefore, better define) their liturgy to dispel suspicions about what was happening at their gatherings.

---

Categories: Church_History

After a few posts showing some of the charges against Christianity, it is interesting to think whether one could get some personal benefits from being or becoming a Christian. With "benefits" I am thinking here mainly of social/worldly improvements.
Let's have a look at some of the acts of charity mentioned in early church documents. See Christian charity in the early Church.

• Hospitality is praised in 1 Clement 1 as one of the main characteristics of the Corinthians. The same document says that some Christians offered themselves to release others from slavery:

  We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others.

  (1 Clement 55)
• Ignatius uses these words to designate the unbelievers:

  They have no care for love (i.e., charity), none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.

  (Smyrn. 6:2) From which we understand how Christians were to behave.
• Justin says that

  the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together.
  [...]
  And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

  (1 Apology, 67)
• Similar remarks are made by Tertullian:

  Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.

  (Apology, XXXIX)
• Eusebius reports that in a church there were

  forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolyths, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors, and over fifteen hundred widows and persons in distress, all of whom the grace and kindness of the Master nourish.

  (HE 6,XLIII)

Ciprian mentions something like a "church pension fund" for the needy, and Origen has detailed instructions on how to handle money for the poor. Christian emperors will later acknowledge the philantropic activity of the Church.

But especially in the first two-three centuries, it seems clear that, on the one hand, this social attitude of the Church may well have disrupted established rules and conventions (release from slavery? Help those in prison? Or those exiled to the islands?). And, on the other hand, it seems likely that membership in the church implied for many material advantages (a pattern often repeated throughout history). As a matter of fact, this may be an important factor to explain the attractiveness of the "new religion" for the masses (remember how a constant objection to Christianity was that it attracted mainly "illeterate people").

Another point worth considering is the personal power advantage that membership in the Church could imply for some. The "president" (of the assembly) had in his hand perhaps a considerable amount of money, plus the power to direct use of this money for various causes. This power was perhaps something actively looked on; Tertullian explains that the elders of the Church are men "obtaining that honour [to preside] not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God", which may be a bit idealistic.

This power to help (or not) obviously gives greater significance to membership itself: so that, as Hall suggests, excommunication from the Church was a very severe penalty, and one that might have had direct and harsh consequences in one's life. Like in a spiralling circle, this would have therefore more and more reinforced the power of the "elders".

---

Categories: Church_History

This post is just to recap two or three technicalities related to this blog I recently worked on.

• Syndication: the blog is available for syndication via RSS or ATOM through this FeedBurner link.
• Bloglines: clicking on this link simplifies subscription to the blog with Bloglines.
• Board: on the left there's now a read-only whiteboard (currently via TagBoard). The idea is that I use that space to quickly write down something I may consider for future blogging. We'll see how it goes.

I noticed that Internet Explorer does not display the blog very well wrt e.g. the size of the left pane. Both my time and CSS skills are very limited, so I think it will stay like that for the time being. Also, I now tend to use almost exclusively Mozilla, which seems to do a good job, so I have even less incentive to work on this. But if anybody has fixes or suggestions, please let me know.

Update (July 20, 2004): I may have fixed some of the problems of IE's rendering of this page; unfortunately this comes at the price of putting the whiteboard at the bottom of the page: if I understand the XHTML and CSS documentation, which is very unlikely, the "iframe" needed by the tagboard does not fit well within a CSS container. Or something like this. Whatever.

Athenagoras wrote his περι χριστιανων (Plea for Christians) around 177. This text is addressed to the emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. These are the charges against Christianity he wants to refute (I shall consider the answers that Athenagoras and other apologists give later on):

1. Just the name Christian is enough to condemn and persecute. Why is it so? Others have different customs and laws (in some cases ridiculous), but do not get the same treatment. Athenagoras wants Christians to be treated as others when accused.
   
2. Christians are atheists. Athenagoras explains that this charge is related to the fact that Christians acknowledge only one God (and he explains to some length how this one God has a Son, and how the Holy Spirit is "an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun"). The charge of atheism may seem strange to us, but it is linked to the refusal to offer sacrifices to the pagan gods.
3. Christians indulge in Thyestean feasts. Thyestes was invited by his brother to a banquet in which the dish was his own sons. A Thyestean feast is therefore a reference to cannibalism: apparently, a then common misconception on the nature of the Eucharist. Note that Thyestes can also be a symbol for other common charges against Christianity, like adultery, sedition, and OEdipean intercourse (since he seduced his brother's wife and convinced her to steal from her husband property; he also raped his own daughter).
   
4. Christians practice OEdipean intercourse. We have seen similar accusations in the more or less contemporary Octavius, which refers to Marcus Cornelius Fronto, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, as a proponent of those charges.
   

On Athenagoras, see this article.

---

Categories: Church_History

Here are some of the objections that Celsus raised against Christianity in the late second century (c.180). They are all found in Contra Celsus by Origen, as no original works by Celsus are extant. According to Origen, Celsus was an Epicurean.

1. Christians engage in secret associations with each other. At least part of these gatherings consists in "love-feasts".
2. Christianity (and Judaism) is barbarous in origin. Much better are the Greeks and their dialectics.
3. The moral system of Christianity is nothing new.
4. The Jews observe a mode of worship derived from their fathers, and retain their ancestral customs; they do not seek to subvert and get rid of "institutions established from the beginning in the various places". Not so the Christians. They also claim that their ancestral customs derive from the Jews, but "have revolted from the Jews".
5. The herdsmen and shepherds that created Judaism decided that there was only one God, and they named it in different ways (the Highest, Adonai, etc). But "it makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians".
6. Assuming that God decided to rescue humanity from evil (and Celsus suggests that he did so in a whimsical way, like Jupiter "awaking from a lenghtened slumber"), why did he not send the Holy Spirit to many and then send these many into the whole world? Christians make themselves ridicolous when they say that the Spirit descended only on Jesus the Son of God, and that he was sent only to the Jews.
7. Christians are not really monotheists. In reality they worship "to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently". They won't accept to worship God alone.
8. The idea of a God coming down to the earth is shameful. What would be the purpose of such a descent on the part of God? Didn't God know already all that was going on on earth? If so, why coming down? Couldn't he fix allegedly wrong things directly?
9. The virginal birth of Jesus was invented. In reality Jesus was born out of an adulterous relation, because of which her mother was kicked out of the house by the husband, a carpenter. Jesus, having learned some miraculous powers when he was in Egypts working as a servant, used them to proclaim himself a god.
10. What proof do we have of the resurrection? Jesus was seen after resurrection by "a hysterical female" and by others "who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a allucination due to some mistaken notion [...], or, which is more likely, wanted to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale". So, the story is fabricated. In general, there is no proof or witnesses to events narrated in the gospels.
11. Jesus was no God because he received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid himself.
12. If God is the God of all, and if by being God he does not need anything (therefore, he cannot be jealous), why do Christians teach to avoid public feasts and idol offerings? In fact, idols are either nothing (so there is no harm in offering to them), or they are demons. But in this case they are also God's creatures, and "we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious".
13. Christians do not proceed by means of reason; they rather repeat "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!". This is why Christianity is so much widespread among illiterate persons. Christians are not able to explain "at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived". For Christians, "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but foolishness is good".
14. Christians, when in front of wise people, remain silent. But when they get hold of children and "some stupid women", they say they should not pay any attention to their fathers and school-teachers but must obey them. They don't speak in front of these teachers because "they do not want to have anything to do with the silly and obtuse teachers that are totally corrupted". They also teach children that, if they like, they should leave father and schoolmasters.
15. Celsus condems "those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them".
16. Christianity makes a point of calling to the faith "ignorant, unintelligent, uninstructed, or foolish persons"; on the other hand, it rejects those who are instructed, wise or prudent. In addition, they prefer "sinners over others".
    
17. Christians must choose: either they decide not to render service to the gods, and in this case they should not marry nor have children, and therefore disappear soon from the face of the earth. Or they can marry, have children, and enjoy life and its sorrows: but in this case they must "discharge the duties of life". If they receive anything from life, they should pay honor to "those beings who control the affairs of this life".
18. The maintenance of social order depends on paying honours to God and men; by contrast, the Christians' God does not help his followers.
19. Christians are not consistent in their respect of the soul and of "its bodily organs". If they were, they would refuse to eat all animal food (Celsus refers here to the vegetarianism of Pythagoras, who, according to Ovid, said that "animals share with us the privilege of having a soul"). Instead Christians only refuse to eat "slain victims".
20. Celsus urges Christians to "take office in the government of the country", and to help the king with all possible strength. Apparently Christians were rather reluctant to be involved in worldly affairs.

How many of these objections (and to what extent) still have some appeal and/or validity in today's world?

---

Categories: Church_History

He was the victim of a persecution that broke at Antioch, of which we don't know the reason. He died about 110 in Rome.

There are seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius in HE 3.36 (and supposed to be authentic):

1. To the Christians of Ephesus
   
2. To the Christians of Magnesia
3. To the Christians of Tralles
4. To the Christians of Rome
5. To the Christians of Philadelphia
   
6. To the Christians of Smyrna
7. To Polycarp

The letters to Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles and Rome were written from Smyrna. The letters to Philadelphia, Smyrna and to Polycarp were written from Troas.

In the letter to Ephesus, Magnesia and Tralles, Ignatius mentions the bishop of these churches (Onesimus, Damas and Polybius, respectively). He does not mention a bishop in the letter to the Romans. This fact has been interpreted in various ways: first of all, some think it unlikely that monoepiscopacy was in place in the 1st century (this is the same observation I wrote about in the notes on 1 Clement). This is important: if it was true, it would perhaps mean that at least this part of the letters has been tampered with. Other doctrinal points that are extracted from the letters, then, would also be called into discussion (see later). How this tampering would be related to the long recension of the letters I don't know. Secondly, assuming there was indeed a bishop at Ephesus, Magnesia and Tralles, why did he not mention a bishop at Rome? Perhaps the Roman church at that time had no bishop. I find it difficult to reconcile this with 1 Clement (which is normally dated around 95).

The common three motives of his letters are:

1. Strenghten respect for bishops and presbyters
2. Reject docetism and any tendency to Judaistic practices (it is not clear if this is directly linked to docetism or if the critic to Judaism stands on its own). See this article on docetism by AKMA.
   
3. Secure the future of his own church in Antioch

Ignatius' concern for unity and concord has been seen by some as an indicator to affinity of Ignatius with gnostic thought. Schlier thought that gnostic ideas are reflected in the mythological account of Eph. 19 (cf. in particular the outcome: "the ignorance of wickedness vanished away").

The attitude of Ignatius toward Judaism is one that recognizes this is the path Christians are coming from (Magn., 8-10). But Judaism lived in preparation of Jesus Christ, and now "It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity".

Newman:

the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his [Ignatius'] seven epistles.

In particular, these are points that have been read into the letter from a Catholic perspective (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

• divine institution of the Church, whose end is salvation of the souls. Those who separate from the Church cut themselves off from God (Philad. c. iii)
• the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi)
• threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi)
• the order of the episcopacy is superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii)
• unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii)
• holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.)
• catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii)
• infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii)
• doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii)
• Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii)
• supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v)
• religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v)
• value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii)
• primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.)
• against the doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii)

An important point is to see how much if any of this is eisegesis. I understand these points have been historically perceived by protestant theology to be just that, possibly by means of later additions.

Anyway, why was he arrested? We find throughout the letters a concern toward the spiritual health of the faithful against heresies or attacks to authority. I find it plausible that the very same problems he deals with were present in his own city of Antioch. We already saw in 1 Clement that similar issues plagued the Corinthians, so this does not seem too unrealistic. This might also give us a hint on Ignatius' attitude toward his own ministry: he is and wants to be a martyr, and he also feels very much the unworthiness of his own condition: perhaps being under attack might partly explain this attitude. Indeed, in the letter to Polycarp he mentions possible attacks to the bishop: they might well have been attacks to his own ministry. This is also a theme we already found in 1 Clement.

Certainly his doctrine of the incarnation is linked to his own fate on earth and to his desire to be a martyr:

But if it were as certain persons who are godless, that is unbelievers, say, that He suffered only in semblance, being themselves mere semblance, why am I in bonds? And why also do I desire to fight with wild beasts? So I die in vain. (Trall. 10)

The reason for his arrest might then be linked to some unrest that occurred in Antioch (parallel perhaps to what Suetonius says in his life of Claudius). This is related to an important point: we normally do not know the exact reasons why Christianity was considered illegal, and why Christians were killed and/or deported to Rome. This is true at least before emperor Decius decides (in 250) that Christians are a real enemy of the Roman order. Before that period, persecutions were sporadic and random.

The customary reason for arrest given by early Christians was that the Jews accused them before the Romans (see for example Acts 18:12-17). But some other interesting facts can be considered:

• Tacitus (Annals, 15.44), in his report of the fire of Rome under Nero, says that the Christians are "a class hated for their abominations", and that Christianity was "a most mischievous superstition".
• Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (about 112), says that he observed the practices of the Christians. He points out that:
  • Christians are stubborn, and "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished".
    
  • There are anonymous charges against the Christians (see below). Trajan in his reply does not approve of these anononymous charges.
    
  • Christians meet on a fixed day before dawn, "sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god" and plead not to commit frauds, theft, adultery, etc.
  • Christians eat "ordinary and innocent food". This is most certainly a reference to allegations of cannibalism against them.
  • Christianity is a "supersition", and its contagion "has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms".
  • Since Christianity spread, official temples have been almost deserted; this has caused among other things economical problems, notably in the area of the commerce of sacrificial animals.
    

  Trajan approved the condemnation of unrepenting Christians.

• There are instances, for example in the Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs (180), where Christians deny the authority of the the Roman emperor ("The empire of this world I know not; but rather I serve that God, whom no man hath seen, nor with these eyes can see. I have committed no theft; but if I have bought anything I pay the tax; because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations").

The anonymous allegations against Christians may suggest some people's reactions against the new religion: thinking it a superstition, they found it to be the source of calamities or negative events that occurred in their lives. Christians, who departed from the pagan religious patrimony of their fathers, were perceived to anger the gods (they disrupted the pax deorum). Tertullian testifies to this scapegoat attitude toward Christians when he writes "if the Tiber overflows or the Nile doesn’t; if plague struck, or famine, or earthquake, all at once the cry goes up: 'the Christian to the lion!'".

It is also interesting to review the Octavius of Minucius Felix, probably written in the late second century. There, the allegations against Christians assume a systematic form (the document was used as an apologetic piece); some of them are the following:

• since all human affairs are doubtful and uncertain, it is illogical that Christians "dare to determine on anything with certainty" concerning things. Therefore, it is better to follow the traditional religions. This is even more true since Christians are for the most part "untrained and illiterate persons".
• Christians are fools because they worship a crucified man. They are then said to "worship the head of an ass", and to be initiated "by the slaughter and the blood of an infant". They are also "mixed up in an uncertain medley in shameless darkness". Their is a "religion of lust", and they call themselves "promiscuously brothers and sisters". They also deal in incestuous relations.
  
• the God of the Christians is thought to be hidden and unseen, but still "mischievous, restless, and unseasonably inquisitive". Also, Christians are worse than Jews because they keep their things secret (while Jews worshipped their God openly).
  
• they promise destruction of the world (in particular, impending destruction of non-believers by their God) and further resurrection of the dead. Resurrection is dubbed an "old women's fable", and the discussion about it is quite to the point:

  I should be glad to be informed whether or no you rise again with bodies; and if so, with what bodies--whether with the same or with renewed bodies? Without a body? Then, as far as I know, there will neither be mind, nor soul, nor life. With the same body? But this has already been previously destroyed. With another body? Then it is a new man who is born, not the former one restored.

Several of the objections in Octavius are modern and deserve further attention. The same goes with the objections raised by Celsus.

---

Categories: Church_History

This BBC article tells a sad story about rights to life, professional misconduct and European laws. The full case before the European Court for Human Rights can be found here.

Yes, we know that the right to live as stated in art.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is consistently not considered to cover the unborn. And, yes, we know that any jurisdiction to the contrary would oblige the European Union to seriously work on the issue of what rights an unborn baby has, and that this may well contrast with the abortion laws currently in effect in most European countries. And, yes, we know that the applicant could have appealed to seek administrative satisfaction against the wrongdoings of the doctor and/or the hospital, and that in that case she could have probably won the appeal.

So, the verdict of the Court is likely "right".

Still, this story gives me a deep sense of sadness. I still have a hard time making sense of sentences like this one, found on the case judgment, and reflecting the view of a French court (and, it seems, of the law community at large):

‘The embryo is in any event merely the morphological expression of one and the same life that begins with impregnation and continues till death after passing through various stages. It is not yet known with precision when the zygote becomes an embryo and the embryo a foetus, the only indisputable fact being that the life process starts with impregnation’.
It thus appears that there is no legal rule to determine the position of the foetus in law either when it is formed or during its development. In view of this lack of a legal definition it is necessary to return to the known scientific facts. It has been established that a foetus is viable at six months and on no account, on present knowledge, at 20 or 21 weeks.
The court must have regard to that fact (viability at six months) and cannot create law on an issue which the legislators have not yet succeeded in defining.

20 vs 24 weeks... here lies the legal definition of whether something is to be considered on its way to being a person. Oh my.

And, yes, all this has much to do with the BD. Back to the Didache, 2:2:

{Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued.

There are times when it's really Two Ways time.

This post by Rubén Gómez on the life of Bible software touches a point I wanted to comment on before.

I understand the desire of producers of Bible software to make profit, but I don't think that Bible software is more complex than other open source software out there. Of course this is true of a full OS like Linux, but I suspect it is also true of other open source programs like for example office suits, graphical applications, compilers, editors, and games.

Being somewhat involved with open source software myself, I think that the short-livedness (and the shortcomings) of many programs may well lay in the fact that they are closed. Hardware dependencies have many times less impact than thought and are often driven by marketing processes rather than techological requirements.

When, a few weeks ago, I saw a post by Rubén on The Future of Electronic Synopses, and specifically the part where it said

one should be able to search for all the variant readings of any of the witnesses consistently cited in the Gospels, say B (03), for example, and build a whole B - Vaticanus - column alongside the standard critical text, Textus Receptus, Alexandrinus or whatever. These readings would have to be inserted at the appropriate point in the text, while the rest would read the same as the base text.

I couldn't help thinking, well, once the texts are available, what is the big problem? Moving and synchronizing columns of indexed data that presumably is part of a (in-memory, on-disk, remote, whatever) database?

So, the managing software itself can't be the problem. If it was, and if the problem was felt seriously enough, I wonder why institutions (universities, for example) would not set up collaborations e.g. with informatics departments to fix it. For what regards software development itself, this might of course be complemented with skills found in the open source world (of which there are plenty). Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but my point is that I don't see what's so special about Bible software.

Therefore, the big deal seems to be the royalties problem. This does not coincide but has a great impact on the problem of defining open publishing standards. Here we go back to the open scholarship problem; my position in these matters has always been (and Rubén seems to support that as well) that computer titles are not orthogonal to printed books. On the contrary, the wide availability of good computer titles may well help the sales of the associated printed material. I maintain that what we have today is limited distribution (limited relatively to what it could be) of printed copies also because there is limited distribution of online material, not the other way around. And I am not sure that DRM (Digital Rights Management) schemes will ever work: it is a well-known fact in the industry that encryption (of programs, data, text) does not generally avoid "unauthorized copying".

On the other hand, I do not think that, given reasonable royalties (and this is something I am not able to substantiate, as I have no idea of the amounts currently involved), this is what matters most: I think most people (and certainly most scholars) would agree that paying royalties to get access to a certain text is legitimate, given perhaps all the effort that has been put into the text itself. Most would not mind paying a fee, as long as it is reasonable (again, I realize this term is not well defined here). Examples from the music industry (Apple iTunes, for instance) might help. What worries people, as Rubén says, is the fact that one pays for titles that are tied to a given software, perhaps a given hardware (80x86, StrongARM, PowerPC, etc), OS (Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc), a given version of the OS, and maybe after all this the software itself does not do what we think it should, so we need to pay fees again to buy another software (which also costs money in itself) to overcome those limitations, and so on. And perhaps the company selling the software eventually goes belly up. Maybe, if enough interest was raised in the academic world, somebody might well think this to be a valuable project and set up an international workgroup to work on this and the royalties issues (by the way, there are so many EU-funded programs these days, see FP6 for example, that even something like this might be approved).

But perhaps the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique or other institutions already deal with these problems. If so, it would very interesting to know and to publicize those activities.

In a previous post I wrote that making sense of this verse of the Didache (4:6) was difficult:

Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be

Reading the second chapter of Chadwick's book on early church history today made me think about the possibility that the author is referring here to some sort of determinism. Perhaps he was thinking of Valentinians and following Irenaeus and Hippolytus in depicting Valentinians as supporters of no-free-will/determinism (although Elaine Pagels denies that Valentinus and followers actually had this view). This reference would be consistent with other material in the Didache against gnostic behavior and the text here would teach not to be concerned about knowing the fate of things.

On the other hand, a possibly simpler explanation is that the author here is just suggesting to stand firm in one's decisions (perhaps with reference to the previous verse, about judgment).

---

Categories: Church_History

I just read the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion. Too bad there are so few references online to the letter (most of them refer to New Testament Documents by Bruce). I was not able to find good info on the status of the letter (when was it found? where? textual info? on which grounds can it be dated?).

The passage of the letter that normally gets quoted in an early Church context is this:

What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence, without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied. For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the. whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into Every land. Nay, Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

The point that interests me here is not so much whether this document gives us a hint to the existence of an historical Jesus; it is rather to understand, assuming that Mara is really referring to Jesus, what the attitude toward Judaism was at his time (and here we have the big problem of dating Mara's letter). And, what use if any was ever done of this letter in antiquity?

Maybe Mara was not a Christian; otherwise, he would have dealt with the figure of Jesus in a more detailed way, perhaps mentioning resurrection, or other details. Also, his attitude against persecution is not exactly the one of, say, Ignatius of Antioch and of some of the Christian martyrs: Mara would definitely seek the opportunity of making a defence.

He is by his own admission a learned man, one that walked the path of learning and Greek philosophy. He was also likely of high standing, if we are to believe that his son is being educated by "a master and guardian". But with all his learning, something happened someday to his life, as all his knowledge suffered shipwreck when the birth of life took place. This may well be a reference to a new belief of his, but if this belief is Christianity it is not clear why it is not made more explicit in the letter. Generally speaking, the letter seems a piece of wisdom literature, where we find some common themes:

• seek learning, but be prepared to accept that learning brings about suffering.
• delusion, that has taken up its abobe in the world, is an important concept. This delusion is associated to the fact that men rely on worldly goods, like riches, fortresses, greatness, children, etc. All these things will pass.
  
• understanding and quest of truth is the solution. This understanding is gnostic, but also practical (understand the things to do).
  

The answer is then to choose that which fadeth not away; and this is learning. Again, this would fit well with gnostic teaching. In this case, the birth of life above could be a sort of enlightenment that occurred to him at a certain point.

Back to the point of Christian/Jews relations: if Mara thinks that the "Wise King" is Jesus, it seems that:

• His authority as a wise man is recognized.
• The Jews are condemned for having put a wise man to death; this would say something about how the relation between Judaism and Christianity was perceived by an "external observer".
• He "did not die" because of the new laws which he enacted. Which laws is he talking about here? They are paralleled to the writings of Plato, or to the statue of Hera: he must be referring here to a tangible and durable sign of his wisdom. Note that the new laws of the Wise King are considered clearly different from the worldy laws that, he says, will pass away.
  

Finally, even if Mara does not mean Jesus as the Wise King, his words seem quite modern:

Moreover I, my son, have attentively observed mankind, in what a dismal state of ruin they are. And I have been amazed that they are not utterly prostrated by the calamities which surround them, and that even their wars are not enough for them, nor the pains they endure, nor the diseases, nor the death, nor the poverty; but that, like savage beasts, they must needs rush upon one another in their enmity, trying which of them shall inflict the greater mischief on his fellow. For they have broken away from the bounds of truth, and transgress all honest laws, because they are bent on fulfilling their selfish desires; for, whensoever a man is eagerly set on obtaining that which he desires, how is it possible that he should fitly do that which it behoves him to do? and they acknowledge no restraint, and but seldom stretch out their hands towards truth and goodness, but in their manner of life behave like the deaf and the blind. Moreover, the wicked rejoice, and the righteous are disquieted. He that has, denies that he has; and he that has not, struggles to acquire. The poor seek help, and the rich hide their wealth, and every man laughs at his fellow. Those that are drunken are stupefied, and those that have recovered themselves are ashamed. Some weep, and some sing; and some laugh, and others are a prey to care. They rejoice in things evil, and a man that speaks the truth they despise.

---

Categories: Church_History

Text here.

This is definitely a composite text. See for example the Two Ways material (chaps. 1-6) vs the rest of the text, but the composition goes beyond this simple division by content: within the Two Ways section, it is possible to spot places that were probably added/modified over time (look at the different manuscripts). Another important indication of composition are concessions that make ideals more applicable to reality: for example (6:2-3):

For if thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect;
but if thou art not able, do that which thou art able.

For what regards the Two Ways material, Kraft distinguishes between:

• old Jewish material, 3:1-6
• a Christian contribution, 1:3b-2:1
  

Reading the Two Ways, the first reference that came to my mind was Ps 1. But here the Torah-centric vision of that psalm is somewhat missing.
There are obvious references to NT texts (mostly Matthew), but these references are never explicit (i.e., it is never said "as it is written..."). Similar to what we have in Barnabas, this might point to the fact that the Didache did not know the NT material in written form. A complicated issue is then to relate these references e.g. to Matthew sources (Q, Q1, etc). This might give a clue to the dating at least of the oldest material here.

There are interesting points in the Two Ways material:

• there is concern about carnal pleasures ("abstain thou from fleshly and bodily lust", 1:9)
• look at these verses (1:18-21):

  Woe to him that receiveth;
  For, if a man receiveth having need, he is guiltless;
  But he that hath no need shall give satisfaction why and wherefore he received;
  And being put in confinement he shall be examined concerning the deeds that he hath done, and {he shall not come out thence until he hath given back the last farthing.}

  This would seem to (or at least it can) reflect the point of view of a monastic type-of community. 1QS comes to mind.
• Do not give alms until you have not learned to whom to give (cf 1:23): this assumes that the practice of alms-giving was a known one and shows the concern to identify the real targets of the alms (poor people, but perhaps also true prophets/priests: see later).
  

Chapter 2 seems a revisit of the decalogue, but there seem to be interesting additions:

• "corrupting boys" (2:2): again the theme of pederasty we have seen already in Barnabas.
• avoid abortion or the killing of newborn babies.
• the reference to magic practices and sorcery.
  

A first comment is that these practices would not seem popular in a Jewish environment. On the contrary, for example the injunction against sorcery in 3:6 clarifies that these practices have to be avoided because they lead to idolatry, and this seems standard Jewish teaching. That is, from these verses I get the impression that the Didache was born within a Gentile milieu out of a Jewish background; in this milieu maybe pederasty, abortion and sorcery were common practice (otherwise there would be no need to stress their evilness in this way). Perhaps a gnostic environment would fit the bill; the connection between sorcery and gnosticism seems particularly obvious: cf. Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-24, including the importance of money both there and in the text of the Didache.

This Jewish background I refer to above is not a source of contrast with traditional Judaism, at least not the way it is in Barnabas. As a matter of fact, the only reference I was able to find that might refer to Judaism is

And let not your fastings be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and the fifth day of the week;
but do ye keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation (the sixth) day.

(8:1-2, introducing the Prayer of the Lord).  But this passage, given also the lack of explicit polemics against Judaism elsewhere, might just refer to Jewish Christians within the community, that would have kept the old Jewish rituals. The liturgical instructions here would therefore be a reaffirmation of the "new" Christian identity. Again, this would point to a composition of the text outside of Palestine.

This verse (4:6) I am not able to make sense of:

Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be.

Is it a reference to a philosophical thought, or what?

On the confession of sins, note 4:19:

In church (εκκλεσια) thou shalt confess thy transgressions

I don't know whether this practice is/was any different from the practice of Judaism of confessing sins in the synagogue (in Judaism, the importance of confession e.g. in Yom Kippur is in that it strengthens the community rather than the individual, and that is apparently a reason why the confession prayers are in the plural, "we have sinned, we have transgressed", etc.). On the other hand, in Judaism communal confessions seem reserved to serious sins, while light transgressions are a matter of individual repentence -- and here the instruction to confession "in church" seems rather general.

It is interesting to note that the Didache shows in different parts of the text a different type of Church organization: for example, in 4:3 it is said

thou shalt seek out day by day the persons of the saints, that thou mayest find rest in their words.

Who are these "persons of the saints"? And why should one "seek them out day by day"? Later on it is suggested that they are probably the prophets/priests. The fact that one should "seek them" perhaps points to the fact that originally these persons were not residential priests: therefore, one would have had to look for them. Likewise, chapters 11-12 lay down instructions on how to receive these itinerant ministers (and how to distinguish between true and false prophets, a problem certainly much felt when pastoral guidance was not clearly established or defined) -- see here (11:9) the reference to disinterested service as an essential sign to distinguish truth from falsity.

But in chapter 15 the picture changes completely:

Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved

This would point now to a society where residential pastoral care is growing and encouraged. How these bishops and deacons (that are to be, again, "not lovers of money": this was definitely an important concern) are approved is not clear. Anyway, this is another hint to the composite nature of this text.

Finally, chapter 16 is eschatological: this is surprising from the point of view of the content that comes before chap. 16 (cmp with Barnabas, strongly concerned with eschatological matters throughout the text), but probably not surprising at all from a redactional point of view, as it provides, at the end of the text, instructions about the final end. Whether and how this eschatological message has reference to the actual life of the community that used/composed Didache, is not clear.

---

Categories: Church_History

Text here; see very interesting commentary by Robert Kraft. It is difficult to express how much the material that prof. Kraft has put online is valuable to me.

Of all the extant sources, note that the OL (maybe originally from the 3rd or late 2nd century, and therefore most likely the oldest source) contains only Barnabas 1-17 and leaves out the Two Ways. This makes one wonder whether the "first edition" only extended till chapter 17. For what regards the Two Ways, cmp with 1QS and with the Didache.

The numerous quotations in 1-17 make it clear that Barnabas is the result of a school with its roots firmly in Judaism. But this statement needs to be better qualified. Typical of the quotations is the fact that:

• They are not usually concerned about giving the exact source ("it is written", etc). Sometimes they just seem to retain the flavor of a certain biblical passage.
  
• They often differ in words from the biblical text as we have it today. Cf. the problem of the "rewritten scriptures" I worked on for the Intertestamental Studies course.
  
• They derive for 1/4 from the OG of Isaiah; there is material from the Psalms and from the Pentateuch. Only one quotation (4:14, "many are called but few are chosen") seems to refer to a NT text (hence, some say that Barnabas should be dated perhaps before the end of the first century; for what regards the terminus a quo, an alleged reference to the destruction of the Second Temple in 16:3-5 is often used). I find the statement that Barnabas did not know the NT in written form (Kraft) intriguing.
  

Apparently, Barnabas did not use the Hebrew text of the OT. How do we interpret this fact?

• he may not have been a Jew. He would have been a Gentile, converted to Christianity. Or,
  
• he may have been a Christian Jew, with access to Greek material only. How realistic is this? Not much, unless we assume that the epistle was born outside of Palestine. This would be consistent with the fact that the first witnesses to the epistle are from Alexandria (but the epistle being from the Alexandrian area is consistent also with the hypotesis that he was a Gentile, see later).
  

Look at 16:7:

Before we believed on God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because we did whatsoever was contrary to God.

To me, this seems to point more toward a Gentile context rather than a Jewish one: the words above, applied to Judaism, would assume complete rejection of the covenant, etc: which would not be very consistent with the frequent references to the OT as an authoritative source. Israel worshippers are also referred to as "them".

Now, if Barnabas was a Gentile (without a long-standing exposure to Jewish thought and traditions), perhaps one could also explain why the epistle on the one hand does not express particular creativity ("a spokesman for a living tradition", the AB article says); and, on the other hand, why the epistle raises some important  doctrinal problems. In other words, one could see here the conflicts deriving from the recent adoption of an entirely new belief system. The pattern of a "learned convert".

At the same time, it seems clear that Barnabas deals not only with Scripture, but also with the whole corpus of  Jewish background (midrash, halakic and haggadic material). Still, I wonder why he does not seem to quote much of the Jewish historical tradition. Perhaps the right answer lies in the fact that he was a learned Gentile, and as such had some access to (primary and secondary) Jewish material. That he was a learned one, and maybe even a teacher, is implied in several places in the epistle. He would have been interested in compiling material he deemed to be useful for salvation. He is interested not in speculative theology, but in practical matters (this - and the teaching attitude - reminds me of Sirach), and this shapes his writing and his selection of the material.

The key concepts of the epistle:

• Gnosis - both Kraft and AB specify that this is "exegetical and ethical gnosis". Exegetical because it teaches how to read scriptures correctly (and Israel failed because it misread scriptures); ethical because it teaches how to live correctly. For what regards in particular ethical gnosis, this is perfectly in line with what Clement of Alexandria writes:
  

  Who then is perfect? He who professes abstinence from what is bad. Well, this is the way to the Gospel and to well-doing. [...] But now in the Gospel the Gnostic attains proficiency not only by making use of the law as a step, but by understanding and comprehending it, as the Lord who gave the Covenants delivered it to the apostles. And if he conduct himself rightly (as assuredly it is impossible to attain knowledge (gnosis) by bad conduct) [...]

  (Clement, Stromata IV.21) On the other hand, we do not find in Barnabas gnostic cosmological speculations, or clear theories about Jesus' nature (but see later the notes on Christology). Kraft points out that important (especially to later gnostic writers) terms like αλλεγορια, μυστεριον, συμβολον are absent in Barnabas.
• Eschatology - since "The day is at hand, in which everything shall be destroyed together with the Evil One" (21:3), good conduct (and therefore parenesis) it is all the more important for Barnabas, who lives at a time where "the days are evil, and [...] the Active One himself has the authority" (2:1). Eschatology is not surprising in a gnostic context; but it must be noted that Barnabas does not elaborate much on what will happen at the end of days, nor on the significance of the resurrection of Jesus in this eschatological framework.
• Soteriology - this is something that should concern everybody, and the readers are warned that this is something that requires active participation: "Do not enter in privily stand apart by yourselves, as if ye were already justified, but assemble yourselves together and consult concerning the common welfare" (4:10). In the overall context, this seems contrasted with the self-sufficiency shown by Israel. This soteriology is made possible by the work of Jesus, but the believer must assume responsibility for his own salvation.
  
• Role of Israel - this gives us an important insight on the attitude of Barnabas' environment toward Israel. Israel proved unworthy of the covenant: "So we ought to perceive, unless we are without understanding, the mind of the goodness of our Father; for He speaketh to us, desiring us not to go astray like them but to seek how we may approach Him." (2:9) The tension between the critic of the ritualistic aspects of Israel and the adoption of Jewish ethical teachings and hermeneutical methods throughout the epistle is apparent. The keyword here is again understanding, a gnostic, spiritual understanding of the "new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:6) that Israel totally lacked. The covenant that God gave to Moses was never really delivered to Israel, because Israel turned to idols (4:7-8).
• Christology - there is definitely little interest in the earthly Jesus' works; there is no mention of its birth and baptism, although baptism (by immersion) is practiced in Barnabas' community: see 11:8. It is remarkable that Barnabas looks more to scripture than to Jesus' sayings for authority in teaching. Atonement is recognized (5:1-14), and Jesus is more depicted as "Son of God" than son of man; cf 12:10-11:

  Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.
  And again thus sayith Isaiah; The Lord said unto my Christ the Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give ear before Him, and I will break down the strength of kings. See how David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.

  Kraft says, "Jesus' functions often seem to overlap with those of God." We can probably trace this down to a gnostic influence.
  

For what regards the organization of the community that Barnabas has in mind, note how little details we are given (cmp e.g. with 1 Clement). We apparently find no well-defined hierarchy, exception made perhaps for a reference to "those in authority": Lightfoot has "I entreat those of you who are in a higher station, if ye will receive any counsel of good advice from me, keep amongst you those to whom ye may do good." (21:2), which is an interesting exhortation to moral responsibility for the good of others. It is difficult to find more details on who is supposed to teach and to "speak the word of the Lord" (19:9). The sharing of property (19:8) reminds of the early church of Acts.

On homosexuality and pederasty: as I said, Barnabas explains Scripture sometimes in a midrashic way. This note by Jim West on the Liber Gomorrhianus by Petrus Damianus made me think about the references made by Barnabas on the subject. Let's have a look at Barnabas, 10:6-8:

Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons; for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.
Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For this animal conceiveth with its mouth.

This is the Lightfoot translation. If we look at the translation by Kirsopp Lake, the same passage is not translated (apparently not to offend the sensitivities of its readers) and left in Latin:

Sed nec "leporem manducabis." Non eris, inquit, corruptor puerorum nec similabis talibus. Quia lepus singulis annis facit ad adsellandum singula foramina; et quotquot annis vivit, totidem foramina facit.
Sed "nec beluam, inquit, manducabis"; hoc est non eris moecus aut adulter, nec corruptor, nec similabis talibus. Quia haec bestia alternis annis mutat naturam et fit modo masculus, modo femina.
Sed et quod dicit mustelam odibis. Non eris, inquit, talis, qui audit iniquitatem et loquitur immunditiam. Non inquit adhaerebis immundis qui iniquitatem faciunt ore suo.

"Foramina" is obviously anal orifices here. Hence some identification in v.6 between homosexuality and pederasty. V.8 gets in the Lightfoot translation an explicit reference to women, which I don't see in the Latin. All in all, these verses seem to condemn very clearly pederasts, homosexuals and bisexuals (bestiae quae alternis annis mutant naturam). Sometimes people desiring to deny that Paul in Rom 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality point out that what he is really doing there would be differentiating between Gnostics and Jewish Christians, not talking about homosexuality per se. But here in Barnabas we have the interesting fact of an epistle that lives within a gnostic background, uses Jewish hermeneutics, and still condemns homosexuality. It does not seem to be alone in this regard: see for example Clement of Alexandria in Pedagogos III.3 (to remain in roughly the same gnostic-aware enviroment and period). This would suggest to me a common and traditional understanding of sexual practices within the early church and before (although this certainly would need to be dealt with more in detail).

---

Categories: Church_History